| 1 |
On 13/05/17 10:26, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:52 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It is a bit of "we will not hide problems" vs "not hiding problems |
| 6 |
>> actually causes those problems." Suicide by social contract? |
| 7 |
> As an alternative approach, how easy is it to rewrite emails to inject |
| 8 |
> footer text? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Like a bog standard: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Problem with this email? Don't reply and make it worse. |
| 13 |
> Explore the alternatives: |
| 14 |
> http://someurl.gentoo.org/report?ml=gentoo-dev&msgid=12345 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Where the ml/msgid parts are filled in. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That page can contain a list of options, including making a formal |
| 19 |
> complaint, but it can also help document and assist people with |
| 20 |
> avoiding seeing that email in future, including a list of instructions |
| 21 |
> for specific mail clients, pre-filled with tokens from the email |
| 22 |
> identified by the msgid. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The idea is to lower the barrier to reporting your disapproval, or |
| 25 |
> lowering the barrier to making it so you don't have to see it any more. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> We could, in theory, even extend this service to allow subscribers to |
| 28 |
> add gentoo-side filtering, wherein gentoo doesn't block the offending |
| 29 |
> user, but only blocks the relay of matching messages to subscribers who |
| 30 |
> opted out. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> That way you're not relying on their MUA in any way. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> And that is far less "orwellian" in concept, but still has the desired |
| 35 |
> effect. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Give users the power to do what they want, as opposed to isolating |
| 38 |
> users from everyone because a subset of users didn't like them. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
This should be trivial to achieve with the mailing list software .. I've |
| 42 |
seen similar done elsewhere. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I think having a self-censorship mechanism is much better than a |
| 45 |
draconian 'thou shalt not....' system, and like other web platforms 'out |
| 46 |
there', can be quite effective. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Even if there ends up being an option to 'refer to moderator' I think |
| 49 |
this is better & easier than requiring such a moderator to 'vet' |
| 50 |
everything that is posted, or blindly black-/white-listing with no |
| 51 |
automatic reset mechanism. Diversity and good automation should reduce |
| 52 |
this problem quite easily. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
MJE |
Archives